Is the fact that religion pops up in every form of civilization...

MickFleetwood

An interesting point on the social psychology of humanity in general?

Discuss.

Turtwig

Is this someone's homework or college assignment?
Please share your opinion with us too.

In brief,
Yep it is, we like to have explanations for everything even if they are only baseless superstitions.

MickFleetwood

Jernal wrote: »

Is this someone's homework or college assignment?
Please share your opinion with us too.

In brief,
Yep it is, we like to have explanations for everything even if they are only baseless superstitions.

Neither, just my own observations. :P Apologies for the lazy OP.

Basically, I think human nature has an inherent need for something to live for, some kind of goal that we all strive to achieve. Such as reaching Heaven or whatever fantastical place your religion outlines.

Humans in general also need something to believe in, I guess. Most cannot face up to the fact that they've likely only got one shot at life.

DublinArnie

I think religion is what makes socity work. Majority of people would feel "empty" at some point of their lives, especially in rural areas in my opinion. These people would sometimes turn to religion if they can't turn to other things like familiy or self-fullfilling needs. Without religion, these people would still feel empty and maybe useless, leading to more suicides. Then, thanks to the suicides and deaths, the media portrays religion as a evil thing we have on earth. I think that's interesting, religion would have been more involved in socity years ago, as the media gets louder, religion gets smaller. Religion is something everyone can take part in, so it's vital, for the poor, for the wealthy, for the needy, heck, even for the young, even they start to question and learn a little about any religion.

It's mad as everyone knows what a "god" is because we're all taught at such a young age, like we're brainwashed into believing a God. I think people were brainwashed into believeing it, as socity progresses and parents stop touching religion, less people would be brainwashed at a young age.

Religion is something we use and accept, not something we are born with obviously. Very interesting in my opinion, i'm a humanist btw, so don't critise!

MagicMarker

DublinArnie wrote: »

I think religion is what makes socity work.

Where society works it does so in spite of religion, not because of it.

Sulla Felix

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An interesting point on the social psychology of humanity in general?

Discuss.

Only insofar as lots of other things, positive and negative, also pop up in every form of civilization.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An interesting point on the social psychology of humanity in general?

Discuss.

I agree it's something that needs to be accounted for, without feeling that we've an axe to grind. If religious practice is a normal human feature, then it's a normal human feature.

I think "The Golden Bough" is a good place to start exploring it. I know many serious scholars would feel the approach is out of date. But you can't fault the sheer amount of work that went into it, and I feel the way he draws out the common strands in so many religious myths is illuminating.

It's hard work to read through it, but worth the effort.

HansHolzel

Myth is a word commonly and superficially used to mean a false belief. Anthropology in contrast defines myths as sacred tales.

Myths symbolize our progression through life.

Thomas Luckmann's 1960s book The Invisible Religion detailed how belief in the supernatural had been replaced for many in the West by belief in social mobility, sexual expression and the nuclear family i.e. having it all, during our only time alive.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

Myth is a word commonly and superficially used to mean a false belief. Anthropology in contrast defines myths as sacred tales.

Myths symbolize our progression through life.

I'd suggest there's a case to be made that no-one can actually accumulate enough knowledge independently to function in life. Inevitably, we've to choose one or other model without knowing if it will be effective.

All really want to know is how Hollister get away with it. How do you align a product with people's aspirations to such an extent that they throw their mone at you?

Sin City

Brian Shanahan

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An interesting point on the social psychology of humanity in general?

Discuss.

At a certain stage in a civilisation's development "goddidit" is the best explanation for unusual or major phenomena which happen to that civilisation.

That doesn't detract from how bad an answer it is, but we have to accept that a few thousand years ago when life was "nasty, brutish and short", people didn't have time to think through the likes of "how and why does thunder happen?", or "why did Urg die last night?"

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

At a certain stage in a civilisation's development "goddidit" is the best explanation for unusual or major phenomena which happen to that civilisation.

That doesn't detract from how bad an answer it is, but we have to accept that a few thousand years ago when life was "nasty, brutish and short", people didn't have time to think through the likes of "how and why does thunder happen?", or "why did Urg die last night?"

That's grand, and only needs to be tempered by realism about the extent to which we understand anything now. Inevitably, this has been said better by someone else.

“"He who investigates the history of institutions, should constantly bear in mind the extreme complexity of the causes which have built up the fabric of human society, and should be on his guard against a subtle danger incidental to all science — the tendency to simplify unduly the infinite variety of the phenomena by fixing our attention on a few of them to the exclusion of the rest. The propensity to excessive simplification is indeed natural to the mind of man, since it is only by abstraction and generalisation, which necessarily imply the neglect o£ a number of particulars that he can stretch his puny faculties so as to embrace a minute portion of the illimitable vastness of the universe. But if the propensity is natural and even inevitable, it is nevertheless fraught with peril since it is apt to narrow and falsify our conception of any subject under investigation. To correct it (partially) we must endeavour to broaden our views by taking account of a wide range of facts and possibilities, and when we have done so to the utmost of our power we must still remember that from the very nature of thing's our ideas fall immeasurably short of the reality.

― James George Frazer, The Golden Bough. A Study In Magic And Religion: Part 1. The Magic Art And The Evolution Of Kings. Volume 1

In other words, if it looks like I've seen further it's because you haven't noticed that we're standing on the shoulders of pygmies.

Karl Stein

MickFleetwood wrote: »

Is the fact that religion pops up in every form of civilization...

Source FFS?

MickFleetwood

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Source FFS?

Source for what? Religion pops up in many different civilizations, don't get smarmy.

Karl Stein

MickFleetwood wrote: »

Religion pops up in many different civilizations

Many? You said:

religion pops up in every form of civilization

Every or many?

Where are you getting your information from? I'm interested if it's true or not.

MickFleetwood

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Many? You said:



Every or many?

Where are you getting your information from?

It was a generalization. You fully understood the gist of what I was saying.

StickyIcky

OP
Why do my ankles sometimes get itchy?
Discuss

Hate threads that start this why

Why do people bother responding

MickFleetwood

StickyIcky wrote: »

OP
Why do my ankles sometimes get itchy?
Discuss

Hate threads that start this why

Why do people bother responding

Dunno. You'll have to ask yourself that.

Karl Stein

MickFleetwood wrote: »

It was a generalization. You fully understood the gist of what I was saying.

I did? Have all civilisations had a form of religion?

I have vague memories of listening to a Newstalk interview with this guy who went out to some tribe in a jungle to teach them about Christ and them saying 'sorry mate, where is this dude? Make him do something to prove he's about the gaff or we're really not interested in your fantasies'. (paraphrasing)

The sophisticated evangelist came away from his experience of 'the savages' as an atheist.

MickFleetwood

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I did? Have all civilisations had a form of religion?

I have vague memories of listening to a Newstalk interview with this guy who went out to some tribe in a jungle to teach them about Christ and them saying 'sorry mate, where is this dude? Make him do something to prove he's about the gaff or we're really not interested in your fantasies'. (paraphrasing)

The sophisticated evangelist came away from his experience of 'the savages' as an atheist.

I don't know, I haven't looked into every single tribe and encampment in the history of recorded humanity.

Again, it was a generalization.

Karl Stein

MickFleetwood wrote: »

I don't know, I haven't looked into every single tribe and encampment in the history of recorded humanity.

Again, it was a generalization.

Well then wouldn't it be more interesting to consider civilisations that don't have religion (if there are some) instead of trying to start a thread on a generalization that all civilisations do?

MickFleetwood

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Well then wouldn't it be more interesting to consider civilisations that don't have religion (if there are some) instead of trying to start a thread on a generalization that all civilisations do?

Dunno, maybe it would be. I just had an interesting thought process one day and decided to make a thread.

MrPudding

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I did? Have all civilisations had a form of religion?

I have vague memories of listening to a Newstalk interview with this guy who went out to some tribe in a jungle to teach them about Christ and them saying 'sorry mate, where is this dude? Make him do something to prove he's about the gaff or we're really not interested in your fantasies'. (paraphrasing)

The sophisticated evangelist came away from his experience of 'the savages' as an atheist.

I think Robin posted something about these guys a while back. I think the basic idea was they had no conception of the third (or perhaps forth) person, or something. So when the evangelist said "Jesus died for our sins" their response was basically pics or GTFO. If you did not know the person directly, or directly know a person that did, then they weren't interested.

MrP

goose2005

One advantage is that it allows a sense of common identity for a society, because one based on immediate relations or even more distant relations can only form groups of a few hundred. Religious beliefs help to weld together larger numbers

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I did? Have all civilisations had a form of religion?

I have vague memories of listening to a Newstalk interview with this guy who went out to some tribe in a jungle to teach them about Christ and them saying 'sorry mate, where is this dude? Make him do something to prove he's about the gaff or we're really not interested in your fantasies'. (paraphrasing)

The sophisticated evangelist came away from his experience of 'the savages' as an atheist.

That's the Piraha.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

goose2005 wrote: »

That's the Piraha.

Interesting. I hadn't heard of them. Inevitably, it's not as clear cut as it seems. According to the Encyclopedia of the Unconscious Global Mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god,[11] and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made. [5] However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.[12] Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.[13]

On Everett himself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

Influenced by the Pirahã's concept of truth, his belief in Christianity slowly diminished and he became an atheist. He says that he was having serious doubts by 1982, and had lost all faith by 1985. He would not tell anyone about his atheism until the late 90s;[9] when he finally did, his marriage ended in divorce and two of his three children broke off all contact. However, by 2008 full contact and relations have been restored with his children, who now seem to accept his viewpoint on theism.[10]

There's probably another thread in that. Something like "Is maintaining the integrity of your family unit worth a Mass"?

MrPudding

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's probably another thread in that. Something like "Is maintaining the integrity of your family unit worth a Mass"?

Yes, cos living a lie always works out really well for all concerned.

MrP

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, cos living a lie always works out really well for all concerned.

MrP

If only it was so straightforward.

Karl Stein

MrPudding wrote: »

their response was basically pics or GTFO

Terrlock

Religion comes from man, a set of rules that he believes that he should live by.

Some religions are man's attempt to live by God's standards but they throw in there own extra's where it's convenient.

Other religions stem from Satan or the Fallen angles of Old, the ones that came down and had sex with human women and breed the nephilim.

They were like God's to man as they were so powerful.

Jesus Christ was the most anti religious man on the planet.

Another question could be, what has religion got to do with God?

nozzferrahhtoo

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An interesting point on the social psychology of humanity in general?

Discuss.

Only is so far as the fact that the common cold has popped up in every civilization is also an interesting point on biology of humanity in general.

The point being that infections have co-evolved with us and use facts about our biology in order to perpetuate themselves. Things that have evolved for other good reasons have also left us prone to infections.

Similarly our minds and society have evolved in ways that have left us prone to memetic infection from some really unsubstantiated ideas. Things like our ability to see intention behind everything, our ability to represent the minds of others in our own, our ability to seek patterns even when none are there, and much more are all "receptors" which can leave us prone to a lot of religious thinking.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similarly our minds and society have evolved in ways that have left us prone to memetic infection from some really unsubstantiated ideas. Things like our ability to see intention behind everything, our ability to represent the minds of others in our own, our ability to seek patterns even when none are there, and much more are all "receptors" which can leave us prone to a lot of religious thinking.

Another view on that would be to repeat the idea that no-one has the capacity to know whatever 'reality' is. It's not as if there's some authoritative account of reality exists, such that we just need to read it and know.

But we need to act, and to do that we need to behave as if we know what we're doing. That requires us to adopt some model, without knowing if it actually has any validity at all.

In that, adopting a religious mindset (or, probably more correctly, inheriting a religious mindset)is no different to adopting any other mindset. There just rules of thumb to guide action that are either successful or unsuccessful. It doesn't much matter if its creation myth is valid, unless you're planning on making a Universe yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But we need to act, and to do that we need to behave as if we know what we're doing. That requires us to adopt some model, without knowing if it actually has any validity at all.

Science works a lot like that in that we do not really prove things 100% so much as we fail to disprove them. We come up with a hypothesis that fits the data available to us, test the hell out of it and make predictions off the back of it, and if/when it stands up to all that pummeling we accept it as "True" and label it "Theory".

But we do it recognizing that we have not shown it to be true, but rather failed to show it to be false, and that any new data discovered tomorrow could invalidate the whole house of cards the Theory is built on.

That said I would hesitate before building an equivalence to that and a religious mindset. You risk painting it that since we do not know what we are doing then it is equally valid to just adopt any mindset that might work. I do not think this is so and in fact the more divorced a mindset is from reality.... and the kind of processes I adumbrate above.... the more potential it has for harm and pain. So I certainly could not go with you down the path of declaring that one mindset is "no different to adopting" any other.

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's grand, and only needs to be tempered by realism about the extent to which we understand anything now.

You can't get any more real about the truth. At the base of every religion is an attempt to explain unusual phenomena or changes to a group's enviornment or conditions without the proper tools to get an informed conclusion as to the causes.

I know what we know about the universe isn't perfect, and in many cases is far from perfect and probably dead wrong, but it is a damn sight better than anything that ancient societies came up with (e.g. Aristotle believed the brain was a cooling agent for the heart, and pretty much nothing else).

But then again, some people get awful nervous when others bring up the truth, don't they?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

<...>We come up with a hypothesis that fits the data available to us, test the hell out of it and make predictions off the back of it, and if/when it stands up to all that pummeling we accept it as "True" and label it "Theory".

But we do it recognizing that we have not shown it to be true, but rather failed to show it to be false, and that any new data discovered tomorrow could invalidate the whole house of cards the Theory is built on.

But isn't this an idealised view of 'science', rather than the messy, political human institution that it actually is. The equivalent would be to describe the Catholic Church as the mystical body of Christ, instead of a bunch of people following some weird concatenation of the career of an itinerant Jewish preacher and a pagan Roman cult.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

<...>That said I would hesitate before building an equivalence to that and a religious mindset. You risk painting it that since we do not know what we are doing then it is equally valid to just adopt any mindset that might work. I do not think this is so and in fact the more divorced a mindset is from reality.... and the kind of processes I adumbrate above.... the more potential it has for harm and pain. So I certainly could not go with you down the path of declaring that one mindset is "no different to adopting" any other.

In fairness, one consequence of my point of view is I'd agree there's no point in anyone going down any path with me if the one you're on works for you on a personal level.

As to the rest of it, I think the point is that all of the factors that you cogently set out apply to any mindset we adopt. Take a step back, and it simply is necessary to agree that no-one knows much about anything. Go into most fields of inquiry, particularly in the social sciences, and you find competing schools - precisely because it's possible to conceive of several explanations that account for the same set of facts.

Now, clearly, there are differences in what is asserted by religion and "science", ( as in, science in the idealistic sense that you've set out). It's just some of the human behaviours around those totems that are likely the same. For instance, the search for some kind of chumminess around the concept, the kind of thing that might see us attending meetings of Atheist Ireland in the hope of getting some nice, warm feeling that we were all on the shining path of enlightenment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You can't get any more real about the truth. At the base of every religion is an attempt to explain unusual phenomena or changes to a group's enviornment or conditions without the proper tools to get an informed conclusion as to the causes.

I'm not sure that is actually the base of every religion. It may be a consequence of adopting a very literal interpretation of scripture. But I doubt that anyone became a born-again Christian specifically because they found the idea of a ten thousand year old Earth to be convincing, such that they wanted to build their life around the concept.

It's a while since I read the Golden Bough, but as I recall it Frazier found certain themes to occur again and again in widely dispersed cultures. Very frequently, there was an idea of a King who might be the God's son, or be a God himself, or to personify a God, whose sacrifice would mark a rebirth for all, and a wiping of past wrongs. Rituals would act out this sacrifice, to mark this cycle of death and regrowth. Like the OP says, it is interesting that humans find this way of thinking about life to be attractive. It's interesting that they still find it attractive.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I know what we know about the universe isn't perfect, and in many cases is far from perfect and probably dead wrong, but it is a damn sight better than anything that ancient societies came up with (e.g. Aristotle believed the brain was a cooling agent for the heart, and pretty much nothing else).

Ah, hang on. Surely Aristotle would be regarded as one of the first scientists, who based his approach on observation. He's one of the giants we're supposed to be standing on the shoulders of.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But then again, some people get awful nervous when others bring up the truth, don't they?

But, sure, the point is that conceiving of 'truth' as some kind of moral imperative is a religious thing.

joseph brand

The idea of gods popped up all over the world simply because we didn't understand what the hell was going on. Thunder was probably the 'brown noise' of ancient times.

Nowadays religion claims to hold the key to the door to 'everlasting life'. This idea is 'pure shnakey', along with the idea that god exists outside space and time.

To me, religion and the idea of 'royalty' have few differences.

HansHolzel

"Ah, hang on. Surely Aristotle would be regarded as one of the first scientists, who based his approach on observation. He's one of the giants we're supposed to be standing on the shoulders of." - GCU Flexible Demeanour

Aristotle exemplifies the weakness of Ancient Greek scientific speculation - the typical absence of experimentation, which would have involved menial work, which was the job of slaves.

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.Ah, hang on. Surely Aristotle would be regarded as one of the first scientists, who based his approach on observation.

I answered your first point adequately and completely in my first post. No point in repeating it, especially as your reaction is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Nya, nya, nya, I AM NOT LISTENING!"

On your second point there are two problems, a) ancient greeks had no concept of what we consider science, Hans has already pointed out the experimentation problem, and there is a second huge problem, in that the Greek mindset did not allow for the adapting of ideas to evidence, and b) Aristotle was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. Calling him a scientist would be akin to calling Rembrant van Rijn a lens-grinder.

nozzferrahhtoo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But isn't this an idealised view of 'science', rather than the messy, political human institution that it actually is.

Not sure what this has to do with my point that arbitrarily picking a mindset risks creating a false equivalence between mindsets that you risk implying are "no different to adopting" any other. However I would say it really depends what area of science you mean.

The impression you describe above is one many people have because of science in news papers for example... which is rarely science at all but false studies churned out my financially interested parties who pay cash to have people with letters after their name append their retrospective approval to.

The point I was making is that the critique that we adopt a mindset "without knowing if it actually has any validity at all." is true even of science but this does not mean all mindsets are equivalent and adopting any one is as good as adopting any other.

While the very mindset of science is built around doubt and not really knowing anything to be true ever... it is at least a mindset which demonstrably maps onto reality. This is not true of religious mindsets which tend often to be tangential to it.... sometimes in quite harmful ways.

There is a world of difference between a mindset of "While I can not prove X 100%... it is certainly true that every single iota of argument, evidence, data and reasoning we have is amassed to strongly suggest it is" and "There is not a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest X is credible let alone true... but I am going to believe it anyway".

To suggest adopting one is "no different to adopting" the other is clearly false and I was merely pointing out that what you wrote is in danger of giving the reader the impression you think it true.

Mr. CooL ICE

Just for the craic, I'd love to set up an Irish sect of the Prince Philip Movement

Geomy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure what this has to do with my point that arbitrarily picking a mindset risks creating a false equivalence between mindsets that you risk implying are "no different to adopting" any other. However I would say it really depends what area of science you mean.

The impression you describe above is one many people have because of science in news papers for example... which is rarely science at all but false studies churned out my financially interested parties who pay cash to have people with letters after their name append their retrospective approval to.

The point I was making is that the critique that we adopt a mindset "without knowing if it actually has any validity at all." is true even of science but this does not mean all mindsets are equivalent and adopting any one is as good as adopting any other.

While the very mindset of science is built around doubt and not really knowing anything to be true ever... it is at least a mindset which demonstrably maps onto reality. This is not true of religious mindsets which tend often to be tangential to it.... sometimes in quite harmful ways.

There is a world of difference between a mindset of "While I can not prove X 100%... it is certainly true that every single iota of argument, evidence, data and reasoning we have is amassed to strongly suggest it is" and "There is not a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest X is credible let alone true... but I am going to believe it anyway".

To suggest adopting one is "no different to adopting" the other is clearly false and I was merely pointing out that what you wrote is in danger of giving the reader the impression you think it true.

When I was half way through reading your post "Monsanto" came into my mind. ...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

Aristotle exemplifies the weakness of Ancient Greek scientific speculation - the typical absence of experimentation, which would have involved menial work, which was the job of slaves.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

On your second point there are two problems, a) ancient greeks had no concept of what we consider science, Hans has already pointed out the experimentation problem, and there is a second huge problem, in that the Greek mindset did not allow for the adapting of ideas to evidence, and b) Aristotle was not a scientist, he was a philosopher.

I've a feeling this tangent must surely come to an end. Indeed, Aristotle was a philosopher. Indeed, that was all you had by way of intellectual inquiry in those days. The point about Aristotle, of course, is that his work was about seeing what actually is. If our complaint is about people just making stuff up without any regard to reality, then he's hardly the one to be picking as a prime example.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I answered your first point adequately and completely in my first post.

Unfortunately not. What you did was introduced some idea of a "truth" that we were all to take terribly seriously, or something. You didn't go into detail.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The impression you describe above is one many people have because of science in news papers for example... which is rarely science at all but false studies churned out my financially interested parties who pay cash to have people with letters after their name append their retrospective approval to.

In fairness, it sounds like you're making the "No True Scotsman" argument.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The point I was making is that the critique that we adopt a mindset "without knowing if it actually has any validity at all." is true even of science but this does not mean all mindsets are equivalent and adopting any one is as good as adopting any other.

That's fair enough so far as it goes, but do recall your cogent list of faults that prevents us from making sound judgements. Challenge the assumptions of the idealistic view of "science". That idealistic view invites us to see scientists ('true' scientists, of course) as servants of the Secret Fire, wielders of the Flame of Anor. It's just another human institution, no more likely to diligently live up to it's pretentions than the Houses of the Oireachtas, or the US Marine Corps.

If you're looking for a human institution that lives up to it's claims, you could do worse than visit DisneyWorld in Orlando. Although, they'll charge you an arm, a leg and a bollock. And I believe they're a bitch to work for.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is a world of difference between a mindset of "While I can not prove X 100%... it is certainly true that every single iota of argument, evidence, data and reasoning we have is amassed to strongly suggest it is" and "There is not a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest X is credible let alone true... but I am going to believe it anyway".

But is that an adequate representation of the contrast? Bear in mind the question that people might be posing. At its simplest, it might be "how do I lead a successful life"? You'll appreciate, having an evidence-based view on the possible origin of the Universe are feck all use to you on that one. Plus, aren't you over-stating the consensual position of ideal science? In the social sciences in particular, you won't get that kind of consensus. What has science got to tell us about the right price to pay for a house in Longford? I'd suggest you might as well pray, and stick a needle, blindfold, into the property supplement.

I'm afraid, I think the profound limits of "science", in that idealistic sense, tend to be brushed aside. It's as if all we need to do is make a pro-forma statement to the effect "None of this is completely certain, but of course only a complete loon would let that bother them", before drawing breath and pronouncing as if we knew what we were talking about.

nozzferrahhtoo

Geomy wrote: »

When I was half way through reading your post "Monsanto" came into my mind. ...

No idea why it came into your mind but it is at least good to know there are some people who can get as much as half way through my posts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, it sounds like you're making the "No True Scotsman" argument.

Not in the slightest given I am pointing out two entirely and distinctly different things which lay people often mistake as both being "science". They are so distinct that Anthony Flew's pet fallacy does not even remotely apply.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's just another human institution

I would not disagree, it is just as prone to human ego and hubris as anything else we do. But again I am not seeing what this has to do with the core point I am making that for all its faults it is clear that adopting one mindset is not the same as adopting any other. There are marked and stark differences. Pointing out a few flaws in a single mindset does not address, let alone negate, the point I am making.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But is that an adequate representation of the contrast?

It is in the context of supporting the point I am actually making. If I was making a different point I likely would present the contrast in a different way. You seem intent on pointing out the limitations of science and I not only do not disagree with you on many of them, I have pointed out many of them myself in the past. Again however this has nothing to do with the point I am actually making.

Hotblack Desiato

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's just another human institution, no more likely to diligently live up to it's pretentions than the Houses of the Oireachtas, or the US Marine Corps.

The difference is that science makes claims which are testable, religion makes claims which are untestable.

Bear in mind the question that people might be posing. At its simplest, it might be "how do I lead a successful life"? You'll appreciate, having an evidence-based view on the possible origin of the Universe are feck all use to you on that one. Plus, aren't you over-stating the consensual position of ideal science? In the social sciences in particular, you won't get that kind of consensus. What has science got to tell us about the right price to pay for a house in Longford? I'd suggest you might as well pray, and stick a needle, blindfold, into the property supplement.

Will religion help you there either?

BTW the so-called 'social sciences' are often not rigorous enough to be called science. Testable claims supported by evidence = science. Studies based on inconclusive evidence interpreted to suit the bias of the researcher, making vague untestable claims = not science.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not in the slightest given I am pointing out two entirely and distinctly different things which lay people often mistake as both being "science". They are so distinct that Anthony Flew's pet fallacy does not even remotely apply.

I'm afraid that just looks like you're repeating it. Plus I love the use of the term "lay people" in this context.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would not disagree, it is just as prone to human ego and hubris as anything else we do. But again I am not seeing what this has to do with the core point I am making that for all its faults it is clear that adopting one mindset is not the same as adopting any other. There are marked and stark differences. Pointing out a few flaws in a single mindset does not address, let alone negate, the point I am making.

ninja900 wrote: »

The difference is that science makes claims which are testable, religion makes claims which are untestable.

I can agree, obviously, that science doesn't fit into the Golden Bough model. But that difference doesn't overcome the common issues of the limits to human capacity.

And, in fairness, there's probably some amount of agreement on that.

ninja900 wrote: »

Will religion help you there either?

Arguably, yes. If your home loan strictly followed Sharia principles, you'd face no risk of negative equity.

(Incidently, many banks claiming to follow Islamic principles actually do have clauses in their home finance packages to protect themselves against capital loss, and pass it on to the customer. But a "true" Islamic bank, like the "true" scientist, would obviously never do such a thing.)

ninja900 wrote: »

BTW the so-called 'social sciences' are often not rigorous enough to be called science. Testable claims supported by evidence = science. Studies based on inconclusive evidence interpreted to suit the bias of the researcher, making vague untestable claims = not science.

Thanks, because I've trailed that coat a couple of times waiting for someone to stand on it. I'd say hardly any "social science" is rigorous enough to be called science. That reflects the subject matter, which involves questions that science can't really address.

The problem is even in the concepts. How could you ever frame a social experiment that you could reproduce?

I think we've taken a step towards a conclusion.

HansHolzel

So then, is meteorology a science, if its predictions are so erratic?

It's a mistake to try to distinguish 'natural science' from 'social science' because true scientific endeavour demands a sceptical, inquisitive outlook, not the wearing of a lab coat and the handling of a beaker.

In other words, the complexity of the field does not decide if studying it is a science or not.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HansHolzel wrote: »

So then, is meteorology a science, if its predictions are so erratic?

I've no opinion, and open to being convinced either way. For what it's worth, I find the Met forecasts are quite good, for about three days in advance.

HansHolzel wrote: »

In other words, the complexity of the field does not decide if studying it is a science or not.

I'm sure you're right, so far as it goes. It's just I'd suggest the social sciences also have issues around the very subject matter. It's not just that the price of a house in Longford next year is unpredictable because of complexity. It's unpredictable because there's really nothing to predict. No-one has a John Jaysus what a house in Longford will be worth next year, or any real basis for figuring it out.

Even if you'd reason to believe that employment opportunities in the town were about to double, for all you'd know everyone would choose to live in rented apartments in cosmopolitan Granard, instead.

(I should say that I don't have a particular fixation with houses in Longford. I just think it's an example that quickly gets to the heart of the matter. )

Hotblack Desiato

The heart of what matter? We can't predict the weather with complete accuracy, and we can't predict future economic trends. Well done on knocking down that strawman you built.

HansHolzel

If human behaviour couldn't be predicted about 50% of the time, there wouldn't be any advertising.

I only chose that percentage because isn't it an axiom of ad men that half of all advertising is a waste?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

The heart of what matter? We can't predict the weather with complete accuracy, and we can't predict future economic trends. Well done on knocking down that strawman you built.

But, sure, you're stepping in the frame of that classic statement. Unlike economic forecasts, weather forecasts don't change the weather.

HansHolzel wrote: »

If human behaviour couldn't be predicted about 50% of the time, there wouldn't be any advertising.

I only chose that percentage because isn't it an axiom of ad men that half of all advertising is a waste?

Yeah, except the line is something like half of all advertising spend is waste, but they've no way of telling which half. So it's actually a sort of ironic acknowledgment of the problems of applying science to social issues.

HansHolzel

It doesn't matter. No science is absolute truth.

In the nineteenth century Newton was gospel. The along came a clerk in a patent office. His name was Albert.